|
Whenever truth is
abandoned, politics suffer because then trust disappears and everyone
assumes the worst about everyone else. That surely is one reason why
there is to-day such a gulf between politicians and the people they
are supposed to represent. Until truth and a measure of trust return
we will not be able to end the contempt and anger with which so many
people react when we try to ask them to become involved in politics.
Politicians have always
been presumed to tell lies, sometimes merely to gain advantage or win
support, sometimes to bring reassurance to a bemused and frightened
public. Lies can be gross and wholly selfish, while others can be
merciful, and in most cases their effect is brief. So it could be
argued that truth is a pretty vague and subjective business, and no
great harm is done if we just assume that everyone is telling lies.
We have to mount a
campaign of some sort of zero tolerance for lies, and not so much for
the mere passing untruths which fend off trouble, but rather for the
kind of untruths which underlie so much of political discussion.
Looking back across the
political landscape it would seem that the two Harolds — Macmillan and
Wilson — carry responsibility for a change in the unspoken rules of
the political contest. Both men brought a new kind of subtlety to
their work, ending the old, simple message of election campaigners —
"Vote for us and you will get" and then followed some indication of
the party’s purposes, admittedly presented in as favourable a light as
possible. From their tenure onwards, the message was "Show us, tell
us, what you want, and we will say we will give it to you".
So principles which
might be ellectorally damaging were changed, which was bad, or covered
up, which was worse. Thus we end up with a Conservative Party having
the impertinence, even after the Thatcher nightmare, to masquerade as
possessing the ability to feel responsibility for the less fortunate.
And we end up with a Labour Party which realised that hardship and
self-sacrifice could never again be accepted by a majority of voters,
and which now works to secure re-election to office with no very clear
notion of what to do with it.
Truth, if it is to be
of value in politics, involves not just factual honesty; it must also
be frank. Beliefs should be stated accurately, and the motives
and explanations of purpose offered. Never mind that so many people
claim to be "bored with politics". That has become a kind of
affectation, a "done thing", especially for those of an age or a
lifestyle which encourages cynicism and swaggering. We at least have
consistently invited scrutiny of all our policies and proposals, and
have not yielded to those who have urged a retreat from the principles
which we were founded to advance.
If anyone feels that
politics as an activity is now tainted beyond redemption with lies,
they should remember that truth must still be defended for the sake of
history. Of course history can show glaring untruths, but these arise
from the dishonesty or incompetence of those who comment on the
evidence. If the evidence itself is free of faking there will be
somewhere a genuine record upon which future generations can build
their understanding.
That kind of truth goes
hand in hand with democracy. Untruth has historically associated with
tyranny. Sometimes the distortion has come from the Right, fuddled
with notions of superiority, and sometimes from the Leninist Left
whose followers were conditioned to define "truth" as whatever best
served the interests of the permanently virtuous party. It is
difficult to discuss political issues sensibly with someone who takes
such a view, and it is difficult to have a confident respect for the
judgment of anyone who once took that view— and there are many such in
public life to-day.
One of our Party’s
strengths has been its refusal to abandon the higher ground. As the
year ends, and a new election is approaching, let us keep to it and
leave our people in due course to observe the contrast. |
